Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Answering questions about Android developer verification

android-developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#81

Post by b112 »

Kwpolska wrote: post #22
pr337h4m wrote: post #9

What do the OEMs have to say about this? A lot of them, including Samsung, have their own app stores. Surely they'd not be willing to cede control?

Samsung's store contains virtually no original third-party software, anything that's worth installing and is not from Samsung is available on the Play Store.

You know, you have to wonder what they did wrong.

Sure the Play store was dominant when they started their own store. Yet companies tend to have excellent success if they control the OS on the device.

They could have offered no commission for 5 years, or some such.

Does anyone reading this know if the contract they had to sign with Google, to have the Play store pre-installed, reduced their ability to compete?

I mean look at the whole Epic thing. They could have offered them commission free use of the store, and used that to draw users in.

It's like they weren't trying.

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#83

Post by scarlehoff »

lukevp wrote: post #72
jjav wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I missing how this is different from what we already have on most platforms? Most? The only platform that is like that is ios. On linux, in any form, I can run what I want. On a mac I can run what I want. On windows I can run what I want. Obviously on BSDs, Illumos, etc, I can run what I want. On android up to now, I can run what I want. The one and sole exception where I don't really own the device and can't ru…

Have you used windows 11 and macOS 26? They both have malware scanning and throw up alerts or scary dialogs that you have to do cli commands or workarounds to launch unknown apps. I don’t see this as much different than Android requiring you to either root or enable developer options. I understand this is a controversial position and I’m not in favor of this change, I just want to understand where the real difference…

I'd be fine with a warning. You can just dismiss it and continue doing your thing.

It is a bit more convoluted in macOS now but still something quick.

What Google is saying is that I need to install adb, search for a cable, connect it and _then_ run the cli command. It is very different, not even close.

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#85

Post by takluyver »

lukevp wrote: post #75
takluyver wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing Windows gets a pass because you can still fairly easily bypass the signature check - it's effectively a warning rather than a hard block. It sounds like for (mainstream) Android, the only workaround will be to plug it into a PC and use adb there to install an unsigned app, which is considerably harder. Installing a custom ROM will presumably get around it too, but that's tough, and various government and…

Is rooting the same as a custom rom nowadays? And enabling developer options won’t allow installation of unsigned apps either?

They could add a developer option to bypass the new restriction, but as far as I know they haven't said they'll do that, and I don't see any reason why they would. The adb bypass is probably good enough for actual developers.

Apps can certainly detect if a phone is rooted and refuse to work, like with a custom ROM. It's up to the developer what they care about, but this is not unusual. There are ways to try to trick the check into passing, but it sounds like the kind of thing that might break on any update.

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#86

Post by bitwize »

drnick1 wrote: post #49
MrDresden wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 15 years of professional development on Android I too am now thinking about switching my focus to something different. And it sucks. Just wished there was a viable* FOSS Linux based mobile OS project out there that I could offer my time and energy to instead.

Aren't Graphene and Lineage exactly that? I have been running Graphene on a Pixel for a while now and I don't think Linux phones are a viable alternative. The vast majority of Android apps just work on Graphene, and there are millions of them. The UI experience is polished, everything just works with the exception of apps that require Google Play Integrity. And of course these projects aren't affected by Google's res…

Waydroid exists and a mobile distro that provided Waydroid OOTB would be as usable as a full-on Android phone. You could even build it to remove the app verification stuff if that found its way into AOSP.

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#87

Post by bitwize »

scarlehoff wrote: post #83
lukevp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used windows 11 and macOS 26? They both have malware scanning and throw up alerts or scary dialogs that you have to do cli commands or workarounds to launch unknown apps. I don’t see this as much different than Android requiring you to either root or enable developer options. I understand this is a controversial position and I’m not in favor of this change, I just want to understand where the real difference…

I'd be fine with a warning. You can just dismiss it and continue doing your thing. It is a bit more convoluted in macOS now but still something quick. What Google is saying is that I need to install adb, search for a cable, connect it and _then_ run the cli command. It is very different, not even close.

Warnings don't work. Scammers will tell you please do the needful and dismiss the warning, and grandma will obey. UAC on Windows was instructive: it only served to desensitize people to warning dialogs. Microsoft is moving toward the industry best practice in this regard by setting Windows Defender to quarantine unsigned code automatically.

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#88

Post by estimator7292 »

runting wrote: post #32
ACCount37 wrote: post #10

Yep, it's as bad as everyone expected it to be. "We aren't taking away sideloading, we're just going to fully control it now! No Google-unapproved code on user devices! For security reasons!" Chrome isn't enough. We need Android to get clawed away from Google too.

Not really though, as you can still install apps over adb without developer verification, same as always.

And by what mechanism can you prevent google from disabling adb? Or implementing a situation like iOS where sideloaded dev apps only last for a week and are signed with your personal developer key tied to your credit card?

There's nothing to stop them, and absolutely no reason to think they won't take away adb sideloading in the near future.

Re: Answering questions about Android developer verification

#90

Post by greatgib » 

   However, if you prefer not to, we are also introducing a free developer account type that will allow teachers, students, and hobbyists to distribute apps to a limited number of devices without needing to provide a government ID.
So much bullshit, I'm really revolted. They want to pretend that they are nice, it is not locked down. But for real, now you will need to be registered to even only be allowed to have your app installed on maximum "a few" of your relative or friends. On hardware devices owned by consenting adults, without anything related to Google, or touching their servers, still they allow themselves a right to review. Worse than that, you test an app, want some contacts to test? Even if not giving your id, everything will have to be traced to Google HQ. Who are you? Who are your friends? ...

I lobbied everyone for years against Apple devices, switching people to Android to have a little bit more freedom. Now Google Android will be the same shit.

If people working on Google are hanging out around here, please know that your company really sucks now...

Post reply on HN